Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

RobertDyck · 2004-09-01 12:59:12

This morning at a townhall meeting at Cape Canaveral, healthcare seemed to be the major concern on most peoples minds.

Is that healthcare concern for Shuttle astronauts, manned missions to planetary bodies, workplace safety at the Cape, or just a medical plan?

When I worked in Virginia I had moved from Calgary. Alberta Health is paid by premiums, my employer paid all consultants as 'subcontractors' which just meant no job security and we had to pay both the employer and employee portion of taxes and health premiums. Alberta Health permitted me to retain their plan while I lived in the states for up to 1 year as long as I continued to pay premiums; the qualifier is they would only pay American hospitals at the same rate as Canadian hospitals. But despite the fact I paid both the employer and employee portion of health care premiums, the monthly total was 1/3 of what my American co-workers paid in Virginia. It's different in Manitoba, Manitoba Health won't cover even 1 day in the US because there are no premiums; it's paid from general tax revenue. But the difference between Alberta and Virginia premiums makes me understand if that's the concern for any American.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-01 13:05:00

Space just isn't that big an issue nationally, no challenger will use it in a campaign because it's a liability.

1)Roll back the tax breaks for the rich to balance the budget.

Okay, fair enough.

But then I got some of that tax break and if I'm rich then the poor are really in trouble.

2)Create realistic budgets that allow for surplus to deal with unexpected trouble (ie wars, hurricanes, etc)

How? What's he gonna cut, where's he gonna get the money? Until he explains that it's not a policy, it's a wish.

3)Embrace international cooperation before and after any wars including Iraq.

Wish. We have international cooperation. Just a few countries don't want to help us because they have different interests. Kerry can't change that.

4)Reduce our dependancy on foreign oil by creating incentives for both suppliers and buyers of fuel effecient cars.

Okay, might help a little. Not a real solution though. We either need entirely new fuel sources or domestic production, conservation is just slowing down the inevitable, particularly if some incentives for little fuel-efficient cars are the sum of the plan.

Can they be foreign or do they have to be American cars. Gotta "create" some jobs you know. :;):

Sounds like a feel-good stance to me.

But if that does it for you, go for it. If I understand correctly the Bushies have already reprogrammed the voting machines anyway. :laugh:

deagleninja · 2004-09-01 14:55:15

Hi Cobra! :laugh:

'Space just isn't that big an issue nationally, no challenger will use it in a campaign because it's a liability'

See, this is a weakness space advocates share: just because space isn't an important isssue doesn't mean it cannot be. Iraq wasn't even on the radar till the Bush administration. They decided to make it an issue with the media and the public. Before Bush's January speech (3 years into his term) he had no space policy, and a single speech hardly counts. A charismatic leader (Reagan, Clinton, JFK, FDR) has the power to set the nation's tone.

Here's a thought......Edwards in 2012? He's got the gift. I've heard many a self-proclaimed republican say only the nicest things about him. Hypnosis? :hm:

'But then I got some of that tax break and if I'm rich then the poor are really in trouble.'

Ok, so I got screwed on that tax break, I ended up paying more tax last year than the year before. But I don't want you or anyone else not to get a tax break, its just that, well like you said, the money has to come from somewhere...
I basically think Kerry is going to take a path similar to Clinton (maintain our solider headcount, but resist 'pricey' R&D and prototypes effectively reducing the military budget by %20-25) while at the same time rolling back tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, our tax breaks (or lack of) need not change.

No problemo!

'Wish. We have international cooperation. Just a few countries don't want to help us because they have different interests. Kerry can't change that.'

Actually, what they want is a fair share of the contracts for rebuilding Iraq so that they can tell their people, honestly, that participation is good for their country. The Bush team doesn't want to share with countries that didn't follow the lead of the US.
You gotta see 9/11 if you haven't already, there's this scene that nearly made me cry it was so funny! Moore basically spoofs an old newsreel style and dramatically introduces......'The Coalition of the Willing!!' He shows a variety of small foreign militias riding bikes and what-not while listing them off.....very effective cinema.

'Okay, might help a little. Not a real solution though. We either need entirely new fuel sources or domestic production, conservation is just slowing down the inevitable, particularly if some incentives for little fuel-efficient cars are the sum of the plan.

Can they be foreign or do they have to be American cars. Gotta "create" some jobs you know.'

I read an interview where Kerry at least expanded on his strategy for reducing oil dependancy. If I can find the link I'll post it, but basically he wants to start a transition from oil to hydrogen cells for example. he never claims that we are going to be an oil-free society anytime soon, just that the government can help guide the industry towards alternatives. Granted, there's no way around it, oil companies are going to take a hit if they can't adapt.

<---'Go get em ya liberal SOB!'

comstar03 · 2004-09-01 18:14:47

Remember that people are people, and they are looking for the best for themselves, they don't see space as a need, food are needs, shelter are needs, education and health are needs, security and safety are needs, but space are not needed.

The only way to make it an issue is to bring space into the everyday lives of everyone's lives. Articulate that across senators, congress representatives and executive council.

Develop campaigns based on the uses of space technology in everyday life. Target florida as the principal launching site, make it an issue for everyday people including the toruism potential for launches.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-02 06:40:51

See, this is a weakness space advocates share: just because space isn't an important isssue doesn't mean it cannot be.

It would have to be made an issue. Either some external development must push it to public attention, or a candidate must manufacture the issue. The former can't be planned on and the latter is a huge risk that no one seriously running for the Presidency will take.

Hopefully Bush has put it on the table from where it might grow to a higher profile, but I'm not ready to start celebrating just yet.

Here's a thought......Edwards in 2012? He's got the gift. I've heard many a self-proclaimed republican say only the nicest things about him. Hypnosis?

I'll go so far as to predict that after this election, Edwards' political career will be over. He can't get re-elected in his own state and he's really not gaining much traction elsewhere.

Although, if we assume a Hillary '08 bid, which will lose, then Edwards might be just what the Party needs to look moderate and respectable in 2012. If he can stay on the radar until then, which will be difficult.

I basically think Kerry is going to take a path similar to Clinton (maintain our solider headcount, but resist 'pricey' R&D and prototypes effectively reducing the military budget by %20-25)

The problem with this is that it is precisely that pricey R&D that gives us vastly superior weapons systems, allowing us to fight at a distance and minimize loss of life on both sides. If we cut that out we'll find ourselves facing enemies with a much smaller gap of capabilty separating us and them, resulting in more deaths and the need for more troops for a given task, driving up costs. In many respects well-applied military R&D saves money and lives. Slashing it is short-sighted and I cannot in good conscience support such action.

Actually, what they want is a fair share of the contracts for rebuilding Iraq so that they can tell their people, honestly, that participation is good for their country.

Oh, it's much deeper than that. France, Germany, Russia... what we're seeing is former allies and adversaries positioning themselves for maximum benefit in a new emerging order of international relationships. They have their own goals that don't always intersect, and sometimes oppose our own.

Whatever happens it will be interesting to see, of that I'm sure. Many forces are at work.

deagleninja · 2004-09-02 07:31:19

But Cobra, we already had at least a 25 year technological advantage on our closest possible competitor. How much of an edge do we need for a stable military enrollment of 1 million? It is getting increasingly harder to keep such an advantage in this age of information too, perhaps we've reached the maximum of our realistic edge? Don't get me wrong, we need R&D in our military, but I could dedicate a thread to stupid projects our military goes ahead with even when the experts say it can't work or at best will be obsolete before it's finished.

God I hope Hillary won't lose. She is our best chance for a female president anytime soon. We deperately need a non-white, non-male president to empower our people.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-02 07:36:11

The space program as it is run by congress and pork barrel projects for there states do not seem to be working. Private industry will do little until it becomes more profitable with less developement cost. So that only leave one choice left and that maybe horrible choice would be to hide it under the military spending and jurisdiction of operations for the trump card of National security. Maybe the next president could be in the new space office in LEO. maybe not..

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-02 07:54:45

But Cobra, we already had at least a 25 year technological advantage on our closest possible competitor.

Gaps close fast if you stop running. Sure, some military projects are wasteful or outright asinine, but every edge we have potentially saves lives. UAV's, guided munitions, night vision, advanced armor, all these and countless other developments allow fewer soldiers to do the same job more safely, and we maintain that edge by constantly building on our lead.

It allows us to fight entire wars with far lower casulties than were common in a single day in times past.

God I hope Hillary won't lose. She is our best chance for a female president anytime soon. We deperately need a non-white, non-male president to empower our people.

We're the freest power on Earth! Empower our people from what?

Besides, that's kind of a sexist, racist thing to say. Seriously dude.

I don't really care if we have a woman President or not, if a female candidate comes along with the right stance on the issues she's got my vote. But Hillary Clinton won't.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-02 08:40:28

I personally would settle for some better choices for candidates than what we normally get. Lets rock the boat and do something different.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-09-02 08:45:32

It allows us to fight entire wars with far lower casulties than were common in a single day in times past.

And how are those expensive tanks, aircraft, ships and missiles helping you in the cities of Iraq? All those things can help you smash the enemy, but to take and hold the ground you need soldiers. It's always worked that way and it always will, even long after the soldiers stop being human.

You also need someone in charge who understands the realities of warfare and of the reigon they are attacking. And a people willing to back you and your soldiers.

If you won't comit the needed numbers of soldiers, if you don't understand what you're doing, if the people don't back you, then the most advanced technological toys in the world won't help you.

And quite frankly I'm a little curious - what is this country that's going to suddenly pose a serious technological threat to the US military?

ANTIcarrot.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-02 09:06:31

And how are those expensive tanks, aircraft, ships and missiles helping you in the cities of Iraq?

They helped us get into the cities of Iraq in record time.

No one is suggesting that expensive hardware is a magic fix for all contingencies, just better tools than the other guys. Even if no one rises up to challenge us on a comparable level I still want our guys to have the best equipment possible.

We'll always need boots on the ground, soldiers in harm's way, but how many and how likely they'll be lost can be mitigated through superior equipment and training. The more effectively we can locate, target and kill the enemy the better. If we can do so from a distance, excellent. If we can do it without hitting bystanders better still.

In simplified terms, if we can send a little robot plane out to find the bad guys and have it waste 'em with a few missiles or send out a few platoons of infantry to do the same, I'm opting for the expendable robot. Doesn't mean we won't need those infantrymen anymore, just that we can use them elsewhere.

Force multiplier.

Or we can cut R&D and use more troops for the same job, increasing as enemies gain the same advantages we're sitting on.

Normally I'm all for government cutting spending, but when it comes to saving money or saving the lives of American soldiers in the field I'm willing to be a little extravagant.

comstar03 · 2004-09-02 16:49:03

Cobra Commander,

Don't think that the Armed Forces are superior to anyone else, They play on a higher level but can be beaten. The mind game that DOD play on the opponents, lets they think the Armed Forces are impossible to match.

comstar03 · 2004-09-02 16:52:56

Cobra Commander,

In Business the same applies to large corporation, small corporation believe that they can't compete, they can if they find te weaknessess in the large corporation and then use they as advantages. Same applies to the Armed Forces.

It depends on the casaulties that will come from the engagement both in military terms or business terms.

deagleninja · 2004-09-02 23:21:13

'Besides, that's kind of a sexist, racist thing to say. Seriously dude.'

Oh no you don't Mr. 'We're the freest power on Earth! Empower our people from what?' You aren't going to turn this around on me !! Let me clarify so that.....Cobra.....won't think me racist or sexist. Female political involvement has always been low since 1920. I merely was suggesting that having a female president (even a pretty bad one) would ultimately be great for our country because female interest and participation would greatly increase therefore adding an additional note to the song that is our great democracy (you ain't the only one with political aspirations my friend).

'We'll always need boots on the ground, soldiers in harm's way' True. But all wars aren't fought against nations. After 9/11 I was horrified that we were fighting terrorist with machines of warfare rather than the best counter-terrorist force the world has ever seen, the Navy Seals. I honestly expected to see our Seals do much of the work, but no, instead we march across Iraq as if we didn't already have air superiority over the nation in an old fashion crawl from border to capital. Did we honestly thin Bin Laden or Hussein were going to wait 3 or more days for our forces to reach them? The best technology in the world won't save you from stupid decisions....

Old wars, those fought by one nation against another, are a thing of the past as long as we don't insult a government to the point where they will risk annihilation in the face of humiliation. The only people that dare fight us are small bands of nomads with no infastructure we can bomb at will.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-03 05:05:14

I merely was suggesting that having a female president (even a pretty bad one) would ultimately be great for our country because female interest and participation would greatly increase therefore adding an additional note to the song that is our great democracy

Okay, fair enough. Don't agree, but fair enough. All things being equal I'd rather have a smaller choir singing in tune than a larger one that's off key.

And yes, you can call me a fascist, I don't mind.

After 9/11 I was horrified that we were fighting terrorist with machines of warfare rather than the best counter-terrorist force the world has ever seen, the Navy Seals. I honestly expected to see our Seals do much of the work, but no, instead we march across Iraq as if we didn't already have air superiority over the nation in an old fashion crawl from border to capital.

We made heavy use of special forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. You just don't hear about it because A) they don't have attached reporters following them and B) secrecy is essential to their work. You won't hear about the great work the SEALs, or even for the most part the Green Berets are doing. The Rangers are all over Aghanistan, not to mention all sorts of shadier CIA SpecOps forces.

But in both cases our objectives were more than just killing people, we needed to remove the existing regimes and replace them. This requires taking and holding territory, occupying cities. No amount of air superiority can achieve this, only grunts in the mud. Anything that helps them do that job is welcome.

Old wars, those fought by one nation against another, are a thing of the past as long as we don't insult a government to the point where they will risk annihilation in the face of humiliation.

You think so, eh? See below.

deagleninja · 2004-09-03 07:13:35

Cobra, how do you explain our invasion of Iraq when our goal was originally to capture/kill Bin Laden?

If your goal is to capture a terrorist and his men, then you only need special forces. If your goal is to occupy a country, that's when you need all those wonderful weapons of warfare and thousands of soldiers.

Btw, that had to be the nastiest GOP convention ever! They spent way too much time talking about what Kerry would do the next four years and almost no time talking about what Bush would do with four more years. And the purple band-aids (mocking Kerry's purple hearts) being worn by people that never saw combat made me sick.

Here's what we should have done in Iraq, let the inspectors work as Hussein disarms missles in violation of the UN agreement. Barring that, we should have flown our special forces into Bagdad, had them take the capital in an hour, use our air superiority to bomb the hell out of all the roads and paths into Bagdad to protect our forces from reinforcments. That would have been the smart way to topple Hussein. But as I said, he wasn't a threat to us, he wasn't involved in 9/11, and he had no weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq has distracted us from capturing the real cause of 9/11, Bin Laden. And now it seems we will need to keep thousands stationed there for years to come. Thanks Bush!

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-03 07:47:56

Cobra, how do you explain our invasion of Iraq when our goal was originally to capture/kill Bin Laden?

Capturing/killing bin Laben was not our goal. It has been decided by the powers that be that we are undertaking a war not against al Quaeda but against terrorism, specifically Islamic terrorism. No one ever claimed that Iraq was about capturing bin Laden, rather that it was part of the same war. The utility of the Iraq war in that context is arguable, resting largely upon long-term strategic factors, but that's the path we find ourselves set upon.

If your goal is to capture a terrorist and his men, then you only need special forces. If your goal is to occupy a country, that's when you need all those wonderful weapons of warfare and thousands of soldiers.

We went to Afghanistan to deal with al Quaeda and the Taliban who supported them. We were going to be removing the government of that country, there was no way around it. We therefore had to bring sufficient resources to bear in order to seize, occupy and rebuild while preparing a new government. SpecOps can't do this. We don't just waltz in, kill the heads of state and let the mayhem unfold. Occupation is a necessary part of this war.

Btw, that had to be the nastiest GOP convention ever! They spent way too much time talking about what Kerry would do the next four years and almost no time talking about what Bush would do with four more years.

Like the Democrat convention in reverse. :laugh:

Here's what we should have done in Iraq, let the inspectors work as Hussein disarms missles in violation of the UN agreement.

Okay, had over a decade of that off and on...

Barring that, we should have flown our special forces into Bagdad, had them take the capital in an hour, use our air superiority to bomb the hell out of all the roads and paths into Bagdad to protect our forces from reinforcments. That would have been the smart way to topple Hussein.

In which case we'd have a small number of troops fighting the entire bulk of Iraqi forces in Baghdad and no control over the rest of the country whatsoever. Midlevel Baath party officials all scrambling about, fiefdoms and warlordism, chaos. You can't go into a country, particularly one under the iron rule of a brutal dictator, kill a few oficials then say "okay, everything's cool" and expect an even remotely orderly transition. SpecOps troops are not invincible and they have limitations. They aren't right for all occasions and they are only part of a much larger picture.

Iraq has distracted us from capturing the real cause of 9/11, Bin Laden.

No, it hasn't. We can do both, we haven't been funneling troops out of Afghanistan in a mad rush. By all indications bin Laden isn't even there any more but holed up on the Pakistan side of the border, creating limitations that have absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. This might be a situation for SpecOps, but there are heavy risks that could result in, worst case, a nuclear exchange.

I know you're a Democrat and have a Party line that you feel a compulsion to believe. Believe it or not, I'm not a big Bush supporter, I think he's made some egregious blunders in the conduct of this war. When you really get down to it, I don't particularly like him and have some questions about his motivations. I have no problem chucking the Republican Party line into the memory hole when it doesn't mesh with reality, and it often doesn't.

I say this not only to deagle but to anyone who cares to listen. Try and set aside political allegiances, prejudices and personal preferences and look at the world as it is. Anyone who believes that their political party has only right answers is a fool. Reason above dogma. See things not as you would like them to be but as they are.

You'll find that Bush is not the dundering monster he's made out to be and the opposition doesn't know what to do any more than he does. No simple answers.

C M Edwards · 2004-09-03 08:21:16

Indeed. We really only have experience with fighting either militias or organized national armies. Fighting both at the same time is new here in the States. We've been fortunate in that our militia (the police forces of our country), like our military, are among the best in the world. However, that's just allowing us to fight a holding action, not take the fight to the enemy.

It does bother me that the response to the "militia vs. militia" aspect of the terrorism problem has, to date, been to give the police more leeway than support.

deagleninja · 2004-09-03 08:30:23

'Capturing/killing bin Laben was not our goal.'

Actually, yes it is. Shortly after 9/11 our president promised to make those pay for what they have done. Bin Laden was the mastermind and yet he is still out there. I would gladly take Bin Laden's head over thousands of 'maybe one day' terrorists.

'We went to Afghanistan to deal with al Quaeda and the Taliban who supported them. We were going to be removing the government of that country, there was no way around it.'

Granted. I didn't argue agaisnt Afghanistans occupation, only Iraqs.

'We don't just waltz in, kill the heads of state and let the mayhem unfold.'

And why not? This war was supposed to be a demonstrated effort by our military to show the world it can't f*ck with us. We have an obligation to our own people not Iraquis or Afghans. Sorry, we can not afford to protect our people and the world's. Let them rebuild their country as THEY see fit and the US wouldn't have the bad rep it has today.

'Like the Democrat convention in reverse.'

Cobra, you are too intelligent to try and sell the 'all things being equal' approach. The Dem Con was way too heavy on the wartime heroism of Kerry, granted, but they had a rather clean convention with an upbeat message. the GOP Con featured monotone Cheney droning on and on about how Kerry likes his waffles. McCain bashing Moore's movie, which he never saw, and much more.

'I know you're a Democrat and have a Party line that you feel a compulsion to believe.'

Actually, I don't think of myself as a Dem. I was disgusted with how quickly everyone (including Kerry) gave athority to Bush to go to war with Iraq. I groaned at how quickly they caved in 2000. Democrats have little or no passion these days it seems. They play nice, as the elephant slings mud in their faces. However, their party platform is more geared towards people than industry so I side often with them.

Fact of the matter is wars are expensive, too many can kill a country. We didn't 'win' the cold war with USSR, we out spent them to the tune of a 6 trillion national debt. My generation is paying for that in the form of limited retirement funds. How are we going to pay for Iraq which has cost nearly 1,000 lives and about a trillion dollars?

I know that war and its technology makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside Cobra, its part of being human and dealing with our animal natures. But another part of being human is using our frontal lobes for things besides violence. Just imagine what NASA could do with 1 trillion dollars.

And for the record, I don't think Bush is evil, just a stupid puppet. You can hear it in how he whines about how 'mean and ugly' DC is. Like being president was going to be easy, lol. For hundreds of years, education was the sole domain of the church. Unless you count the Dark Ages as a plus, the church isn't good at education. Faith and reason are like water and oil. One asks you to ask, the other asks you not to ask anything. How is anyone supposed to learn anything if to be a good christian they must not ask questions? Faith based programs are the worst thing that could happen to this country.

Palomar · 2004-09-03 09:05:05

I know that war and its technology makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside Cobra, its part of being human and dealing with our animal natures. But another part of being human is using our frontal lobes for things besides violence. Just imagine what NASA could do with 1 trillion dollars.

*I rarely step in like this, and I know Cobra doesn't need me to speak on his behalf.

That having been said, allow me to continue: I think your comments are a grossly unfair characterization, deagleninja.

Cobra has strong opinions, a backbone and speaks his mind (shocking, truly shocking!). He also doesn't buy into politically correct crapola, nor does he seek to appease it.

He and I don't always agree (often we don't), but I've read enough of his posts to come to realize he -isn't- a warmonger and I doubt either war or its nefarious technologies makes him feel good. Basically it seems he believes some things are worth fighting for -- and if you are compelled to go to war, do it right and do it well.

And I'm sure he -does- use his frontal lobes for things other than violence. :-\ Being a rather reasonable person, for one.

Perhaps a bit more study of what someone says and -why- they say what they do would be beneficial to discussion/debate.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-03 09:12:40

'Capturing/killing bin Laben was not our goal.'
Actually, yes it is. Shortly after 9/11 our president promised to make those pay for what they have done.

Part of the overall goal, not the end-all of Islamic terrorism. Kill bin Laden and... so what? Another one pops up. It's more complex than one man huddled in a cave.

And why not? This war was supposed to be a demonstrated effort by our military to show the world it can't f*ck with us. We have an obligation to our own people not Iraquis or Afghans.

Because we went in to eliminate not only a support base of terrorists, but to wipe out part of their breeding ground and replace it with something we deem more civilized. Morality aside, from a purely practical sense we are better served by seizing a hostile country and expending the effort needed to install a government more amenable to us than to simply kill a few people and let it work itself out. What we're doing now breeds resentment, but in a decade or two distance will make them less hostile, and possibly grateful to a degree. If we take action that does nothing but keep stirring the pot of warlords and dictators, then we'll be fighting the same enemy for generations. Better to do it right the first time, even if it is hard.

Cobra, you are too intelligent to try and sell the 'all things being equal' approach. The Dem Con was way too heavy on the wartime heroism of Kerry, granted, but they had a rather clean convention with an upbeat message. the GOP Con featured monotone Cheney droning on and on about how Kerry likes his waffles. McCain bashing Moore's movie, which he never saw, and much more.

Yes, the Republicans spent far too much time bashing Kerry, and the Democrats spent far too much time bashing Bush. Both spewed out some rhetoric that really doesn't mean much, Vietnam, yada yada, end of story. Both were big spin-fests for their respective parties, nothing more. Entertaining at times, but hardly profound.

They play nice, as the elephant slings mud in their faces.

That's what I'm talking about, many Republicans see it the other way, "why do they let them get away with all this" as Democrats throw mud of their own. No one is clean here, both sides are mixing feces in with the mud and both are spineless in responding because they're deathly afraid of offending certain groups. You can have a preference but still recognize that neither is inherently superior. The interests of parties and the interests of people are not one and the same.

But another part of being human is using our frontal lobes for things besides violence. Just imagine what NASA could do with 1 trillion dollars.

Now this is a problem many space advocates have, always looking at some item of defense spending and saying "imagine if NASA had that money." Only we're not talking about interchangeable discretionary funding. If we don't go further into space, as far as the general population is concernd nothing horrible happens. If we make a huge cut in defense spending, very likely people get killed. Meanwhile, every interest group looking for funds points and yells "a trillion dollars for NASA when we have starving people/homeless people/ignorant kids/disease/death/real life that we could be spending it on!"

Defense is one of the few functions that government must do, everything else is gravy. Or pork, as the case may be. And since we're in debt anyway, it isn't like any cuts translate into real money. If they want to spend more on NASA, healthcare, education, defense or whatever they'll just do it. Magic government money from the air... Logical rules of accounting don't really apply. Stupid, but that's the way it is.

Faith based programs are the worst thing that could happen to this country.

Well, that depends on what the program is for. I wouldn't want the church taking over education for example, but for many charitable functions such as feeding or housing the homeless they do a far better job than the government for given resources.

And thanks for stepping in Cindy, I was gonna let it go. I get that all the time.

deagleninja · 2004-09-03 10:00:09

I always liked you Cindy, and I still do, but please take some of your own advise before giving it to others.

Does Cobra like war and weapons of war? Yes, he does or he wouldn't have such an avid interest in it.

I have a voice and an opinion too, is my right to speak not as valued as Cobras? Apparently not, but thats okay too.

If you look closer, I wasn't calling names, and if you are offended then you need to lighten up a little. I don't think Cobra was offended at all because he is smart enough to know what is and isn't directed at him.

That said, I will continue my retort at a later time, for I must earn my living expenses (gasp! he goes to work?). Dear Cindy and Cobra, I sincerly hope I didn't offend either of you. I enjoy a health debate as much as the next guy. My intent wasn't to alienate anyone here, but I do get a tad passionate, sorry.

Kerry 2004 :up:
Cheney 2004 :down:

'I'm an old bitter man who did what I wanted to do regardless of reason, so that makes me a hero......' -Paton

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-03 10:25:37

No offense taken.

Does Cobra like war and weapons of war? Yes, he does or he wouldn't have such an avid interest in it.

For the record, I have an interest in military history, which is largely human history as times of war are when big changes tend to happen. We don't order our history by the periods in which we were at relative peace. This leads to a tangential interest in the tools of war as they are integral to its conduct. Sure, sometimes I'll see some particularly impressive piece of machinery and think along the lines of "now this is cool" not because I want to run out and use it but out of appreciation for its capabilities and complexity. Much of the finest design and engineering on the planet is found in military hardware, it's largely where advances come from. And if we are to go to war, I'd greatly prefer to do it quick, clean and with overwhelming force. All kinds of big scary lookin' and expensive hardware make this possible. War will always be a horrible thing, but I'd much rather be on the side that's exceptionally good at it if and when the day comes. If I held the national purse strings many would probably say I'm spending too much on defense, but none of us would ever kneel in defeat and wonder why we didn't do enough.

Again, no offense taken on my part. Par for the course when you challenge someone's core beliefs. Everyone needs a little assault on their assumptions from time to time. :;):

C M Edwards · 2004-09-03 10:54:24

An appreciation of military history is indeed necessary for an appreciation of human history. It is important not to confuse the two, though.

PS: Is it bad that whenever I hear Cobra's words in my head, they're spoken with a shrill nasal accent by a GI Joe cartoon character in a hood? :laugh:

Too much TV. TOOoo much TV...

John Creighton · 2004-09-03 11:37:55

An appreciation of military history is indeed necessary for an appreciation of human history. It is important not to confuse the two, though.
PS: Is it bad that whenever I hear Cobra's words in my head, they're spoken with a shrill nasal accent by a GI Joe cartoon character in a hood?
Too much TV. TOOoo much TV...

I always wondered if that is where his nick name came from but I didn't want to say it. It is too bad I don't remember much about GI Joe. I was too young when I use to watch it. I remember it was a really good cartoon though.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2004-09-01 12:59:12

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#227 2004-09-01 13:05:00

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#228 2004-09-01 14:55:15

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#229 2004-09-01 18:14:47

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#230 2004-09-02 06:40:51

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#231 2004-09-02 07:31:19

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#232 2004-09-02 07:36:11

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#233 2004-09-02 07:54:45

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#234 2004-09-02 08:40:28

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#235 2004-09-02 08:45:32

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#236 2004-09-02 09:06:31

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#237 2004-09-02 16:49:03

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#238 2004-09-02 16:52:56

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#239 2004-09-02 23:21:13

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#240 2004-09-03 05:05:14

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#241 2004-09-03 07:13:35

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#242 2004-09-03 07:47:56

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#243 2004-09-03 08:21:16

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#244 2004-09-03 08:30:23

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#245 2004-09-03 09:05:05

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#246 2004-09-03 09:12:40

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#247 2004-09-03 10:00:09

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#248 2004-09-03 10:25:37

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#249 2004-09-03 10:54:24

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#250 2004-09-03 11:37:55

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

Board footer